F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Dece mber 2 1, 2005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 04- 1601 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 1- 00 01 1- CR-F TM-2 9- DNF UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us THOMAS A. ANTH ONY, a. k. a. T hom as A . A nto ny Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(D ec em be r 21, 200 5) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, H U L L and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Bo o k er wa s d ec i d ed b y t h e S u

p re m e C o urtaf

t er De fe n d an twa s s en t en ce d . Ats en t en ci n g, 1 Def endant r aised his constitutional claims based on B lakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct . 2531 (2004). B e c a us e the B oo ke r de c isi on a pp lie s to a ll c a se s the n p e nd ingon dir e c t r e vie w, we a

pp ly B oo ke r t o this appeal. B ooker, 125 S.Ct. at 769. 2 De fendant-Appellant T hom as A. Anthony appeals the 188-m onth sentence im pose d up on h is c onvi ct ionf or ( i) c onsp ir ac y

to im port a de te ct ab le quanti ty

of MD MA , and ( ii) the im

porta tio n of

ade te ct ab le quanti ty

of MD MA , in vio la tio n of 21 U . S. C. §§ 9 52( a) , 960 (b )( 3) , 963 , and 8 51. D ef en dant c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a

ppl ic at ionof

the f ed er al se nte nc ing gui de lin es in fa shi oni ng h is sentence constitut ed a violation o f his constitu tional right s under Booker v. U nited States, 125 S.Ct. 738 (200 5). D efendant’ s constit ution al claim s wer e ra ised 1 tim el y in the dis tr ic t c ourt and, a s su ch , pr es er ve d f or our r ev ie w . W e va cate and re m an d f or r es en te nc ing . D ef en dant arg ue d a t se nte nc ing and arg ue s a ga in o n a ppe al that hi s co nst itutio na l r igh ts w er e vio la te d whe n th e se nte nc ing c ourt ( i) e nhanc ed his se nte nc e unde r 21 U . S. C. § 85 1 ba se d onpr ior c onvi ct ion s; ( ii) he ld h im r e s p o n s i b l e f

o r 1 0 0 4 . 3 g r a ms o f

M D M Awh e nth e i n d i c t men tr e f e r e n c e do n l y a de te ct ab le am ou nt ; an d (i ii ) ap pl ie d t he care er o ffen de r pr ov is io ns of U.S.S.G. § 4 B 1 . 1 b a s e do ntw o p r i o r f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n s th a tw e r e n o ta d mi t t e db y h i m, ch ar ge d inthe ind ic tm en t or f ound by aj ur y . D ef en dant a lso arg ue s th at

the3

se nte nc ing j udge - - w ho d id d ep ar t do w nw ar d ho ri zo nta lly

- - er re d whe n he re fu se d hi s r eque st t o de part downw ar d ve rt ic al ly ; D ef en dant m ai nta ins that hi s se nt en ce i s u nr eas on ab le . W e see no constituti onal Booker error. Aboutthe sentencing court’s c aree r of fe nde r an d 21 U . S. C. § 85 1 e nhanc em en ts b as ed on p ri or c onvi ct ion s, w e have de ci de d po st- Bo oke r that a de fe ndant’ s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts are “ not im plicated when a def

endant’ s sentence is enhanced based on a prior convictio n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Ordu no -Mi rel es , 40 5 F .3d96 0, 9 62 (11 Cir .), cert . den ie d, th 123 S. Ct . 223 ( 2005 ). A s w e not ed in O rd uno- Mi re le s, the r at ion al e fo r ex ce pti ng pr ior c onvi ct ion s f

ro m r es tr ai nts on j udi ci al f

ac tf ind ing is cl ear: “ ‘ a pr ior co nvi ct ionm

ust it se lf have be ene sta

bli she d th ro ugh pr oc ed

ur es satis fy ing the f

ai r not ic e, r ea sona

ble doubt, and j ur

y tr ia l gu ar an te es . ’ ” Id . a t 96 2, ( quot ing Jon es v. Uni te d S ta te s, 1 19 S.Ct . 12 15 , 12 27 (19 99 )). D ef en dant’ s arg um en t tha t hi s c onst itutio na l r igh ts w er e vio la te d whe n he w as se nte nc ed

ba se d onaquanti ty

of MD MAthat w as not

a lle ge d inthe ind ic tm en t a lso is w ith out m er it. D ef

en dant f ai le d to obj ec t t o th e fa ct s c onc er nin g dr ug quanti ty

se t ou t i n th e PS I. Ade fe ndant’ s f ai lur e to d isp ute dr

ug- quanti ty facts contained in the PSI operates as an adm issio n of those facts for B ooker pur pose s. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. S he lto n, 400 F . 3d 1 325, 133 0 ( 11 Ci r. 200 5) th4

(c onc lud ing that se nte nc e enhanc em en t ba se d ondr ug quanti ty

not vio la tiv e of Bo oke r w he re de fe ndant f ai le d to dis put e fa ct s inthe P SI ). S en te nc ing enhancem ent based on adm itted facts states no Sixth Am endm ent violatio n und er Booker. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756 (reaf firm ing th at fac ts used to enhance a se nte nc e, oth er

than apr ior

c onvi ct ion , m

ust be pr ove d to a

j ur y be y ond a re as ona ble doubt o r adm itt ed

by the de fe ndant) ; S he lto n, 400 F . 3d at 13 30. Although we conclude that the sentencing court com m itted no con stitut ional Booker err or, tw o kind s of sentencing error m ay be claim ed under Booker: co nst itutio na l and s ta tut or y . S ee , e . g. , U nit ed

S ta te s v. Mathe nia , 409 F . 3d 1 289, 1291 (11 Cir. 2005 ). “ [C] onsti tutio nal error is the use of extra-ver dict th enhancem ents to reach a guidelines result that is bi ndin g on th e sentencing judge.” Sh el ton , 400 F . 3d at 13 31 ( quot ing U nit ed S ta te s v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d 1 291, 1301 ( 11 Ci r. ), c er

t. de nie d, 125 S . Ct . 293 5 ( 2005 )) . S ta tut or y Bo oke r er

ro r th occurs when the district court m isapplies th e guidelines b y considering th em

as bind ing “ even in the absence of a S ixth Am endm ent enhancem ent violatio n.” Sh el to n, 4 00 F.3dat 1 33 0- 31 . W e ap ply pr es er ve d e rr or r ev ie wto a statut or

y Bo oke r cl ai m

if de fe ndant preserved a c onsti tutio nal claim by “ citation to Apprendi or to ot her ca ses in that li ne of c as es .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Dowl in g, 4 03 F.3d12 42 , 12 46 (11 Cir . 20 05 ). th5

A nd tw o harm le ss e rr or

standard s e xis t f

or r ev ie wof

Bo oke r er

ro r. Mathe nia , 409 F. 3d at 12 91- 92 ( 11 Ci r. 200 5) . C onst itutio na l e rr or r equir es r ev er sa l un le ss “ the th gove rn m en t c ansho w , be y ond a re as ona ble doubt, that the e rr or

did not c ontri but e to the defendant’ s ultim ate sentence. ” I d. at 1291. S tatutory Booker err or -- unlik e constituti onal Booker error - - re quires reversal “ onlyif [the e rror] resulted in a ct ua l pr ej udi ce be ca

use it ha d su bst an tia l and i nj ur iou s e ff ec t or inf lue nc e in de te rm ini ng the [ re sul t] . ” U nit ed S ta te s v. G al le gos- A gue ro , 409 F . 3d 1 274, 127 7 (11 Cir. 2005 ), quoti ng United States v. Guzm an, 167 F. 3d 13 50, 1353 (11 Cir. th th 1999 ). T he gov er

nm en t be ar s th e bur de n to sho wthe abse nc e of e ff ec t of the st atut ory erro r on th e d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts . Mat he ni a, 40 9 F .3dat 1 29 2. Ase nte nc e is d

ue to be a ff

irm ed if it c anbe sa id “ ‘ w ithf

ai r as sur an ce . . . that the [sentence] wa s not su bstantiallysway ed by the err or.’ ” Id. (quoting United State s v. H or na day , 392 F . 3d 1 306, 131 5- 16 ( 11 Ci r. 200 4) , c er t. de nie d. , 125 S . Ct . th 2951 (2005)). The G overnm ent concedes that it can not m eet the burden of proving th at th e se nt en ci ng co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e g ui de li ne s as m an da to ry was h arm le ss . At sentencing, the c ourt noted th at D efendant’ s sentence wa s about five tim es gr eate r than th e se nte nc e im pose d onhis c o- de fe ndant. T he se nte nc ing j udge a lso que ri ed the gov er

nm en t a ski ng “ [d ] on’ t y ou f ind thi s an e xc ep tio na lly

hars hB e c a

us e we re mand fo r re se nte nc ing , we do no t a dd re ss Antho ny ’s oth e r se nte nc ingargume nts . 2 6 sentence that the Court has to im pose? ” W e cannot say

with fa ir assurance that Defen da nt ’s sen te nc e was no t s ub st an ti al ly im pa ct edby the st atut ory

Bo ok er erro r. Wha t se nte nc e the dis tr ic t c ourt w oul d have im pose d ha d it

c onsi de re d th e g u i d el i n es ad v i s o ry i s i m p o s s i b l e t o t el l . Ac co rd i n g l y, we v ac at e D ef en d an t ’s sentence and rem and for re sentencing con sistent with Book er. 2 REVERSED an d R EMANDED.